Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 8 <br />issue: the easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts <br />B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party <br />may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement." The <br />agreement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. <br />Staff reviewed the five findings for a variance by explaining the Lino Lakes Zoning <br />Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking <br />subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: <br />1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />Comment: The property has been, and currently is, <br />applicant is simply asking for a further intensi <br />to reasonable use. The <br />que to <br />2.) That the plight of the landowners is due W, <br />his property, not created by the landowner. <br />Comment: The landowner is asking for a fur his land, which he was <br />advised "would probably not be recomm <br />purchased his property. <br />3.) That the hardship is not due to eco <br />reasonable use for the property ex un' er o erm the ordinance. <br />s alone and when a <br />Comment: there is no hardshi nstrate' • apparent; rather the proposed lots <br />simply do not meet the minimum uirements for property in a Rural zone. <br />4.) That grantin <br />special privile. <br />structures, <br />uest not confer on the applicant any <br />'ed by ordinance to other lands, <br />'strict. <br />Comment: Graniz lout the demonstration of hardship or unique <br />circumstances wou % ''the applicant special privilege. <br />5) That the proposed actions 1 be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship /unique physical <br />circumstances are present. <br />In conclusion staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract <br />B would have a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement <br />of 330' for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract <br />A would have 330' of width and road frontage, but it would not be contiguous width or <br />frontage. As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />